Segal Waste Management Report
Prepared for
SFU Vancouver Operations Department
Professor David Hannah
Segal Graduate School of Business
Simon Fraser University
Prepared By
Winnie Yip
Moona Ahmed
Mike Burston
Patrick Peura
John Ho
April 3, 2008
Executive Summary
The Segal Waste Management Project examined six aspects of waste management in the Segal building:
water consumption, waste tracking, recycling, biodegradable garbage bag implementation, reusable cups
program, and battery consumption and recycling.
The team conducted extensive research, both primary and secondary, to examine the current Segal
building‟s waste management program, and to find upgrade options that are both cost effective and
contribute to make Segal‟s operations more sustainable. When it comes to balancing sustainability and
cost, the team values both equally and does not recommend actions that are not considered business
worthy: the benefits, both monetary and non-monetary, must outweigh the cost of implementation.
The conclusions of the team‟s research have found non-recommendations for both water consumption
and biodegradable bag implementation, and actions for recycling program, reusable cups program, and a
battery program, which include:
Implementing an effective campus-wide recycling bin program.
Distributing reusable mugs to new staffs to reduce disposable cup waste.
Pioneering an effective, small-scale, battery recycling program at Segal and/or SFU Vancouver.
Rechargeable batteries should be used; the recommended brand is Eneloop batteries.
Details are listed in the report and a summary list is included in the conclusion of the report. Details of
suggested methods of implementation and alternatives are also recommended within each section, which
will assist the department in seeking implementation options and practical advice.
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Segal Waste Management Project ............................................................................................................... 1
Water Consumption ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Current System ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Automatic Faucet System .................................................................................................................... 2
Implementation Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3
Suggestion ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Waste Tracking ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Time and Date ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Results and Findings ............................................................................................................................ 5
Other Findings ............................................................................................................................. 6
Implications ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Recycling Program ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Choice of Recycling Containers ........................................................................................................... 8
Cardboard Recycling Containers ................................................................................................. 9
Blue Plastic Recycling Containers ............................................................................................... 9
Elegant Steel Recycling Containers .......................................................................................... 10
Retrofit Recycling Containers .................................................................................................... 11
Suggestions ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Full Version. ............................................................................................................................... 12
Centralized Version. .................................................................................................................. 13
Reduced Version. ...................................................................................................................... 13
Other Options. ........................................................................................................................... 14
Reducing Waste .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Plastic Bags Reduction ............................................................................................................................... 14
Disposable Cups Management ................................................................................................................... 15
Sustainable Battery Program ...................................................................................................................... 16
Battery Recycling................................................................................................................................ 16
The Big Green Box Program ..................................................................................................... 17
Storage for Used-Up Batteries .................................................................................................. 18
Rechargeable Batteries as an Alternative to Alkaline Batteries ......................................................... 18
Conclusions & Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 20
Recommendations.............................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................................iii
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................... v
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................... vi
ii
Segal Waste Management Project
The Segal Waste Management Project examined six aspects of waste management in the Segal building:
water consumption, waste tracking, recycling program, biodegradable garbage bag implementation,
reusable cups program, and battery consumption and recycling. Suggestions are recommended at the
end of each section and recommendations are summarized at the end of the report.
Water Consumption
Introduction
During our initial meeting with the operations department, we were asked to look into ways of further
reducing water consumption at the Segal Graduate School of Business Building. We were given leads
into the automatic censored faucet system as a way of reducing water consumption and improving
hygiene. Our team has developed a cost/benefit analyses for using both the current (conventional) and
automatic system.
Current System
The current system in place at Segal uses conventional faucets.
Typically these faucets have a standard flow of 7.5L/min. However,
all the faucets on campus are equipped with aerators, which
increase water spray velocity, reduce splash, and lower the water
flow rate to 1.9 L/min – saving both water and energy.
Figure 1: Current Faucet System
Pros: The benefit of using the conventional system is that it is already installed on the premises. This
alleviates any installation or purchase costs that would be required to install an alternative. Repairs to this
conventional system are also much simpler and therefore less costly for maintenance.
Cons: The concerns our liaisons had with the current system was that of hygiene and leaky faucets. With
the conventional faucets, there is the potential of users soaping their hands and, because of perceived
sanitary reasons, failing to shut off the taps completely. As a result, this leads to the problem of
1
dripping/leaky faucets. Statistics show that a dripping faucet can add up to a consumption of 85L a day,
1
600L a week, and 30,000L of water wasted in a year . A leaking or dripping faucet can also lead to the
wearing out of the faucet parts; they can also stain sink bowls and corrode fixtures if not fixed.
Automatic Faucet System
As with the conventional water faucet, automatic faucets have the same flow rate
of 7.5L/min, decreased down to 1.9L/min with the aerators. In addition, these
faucets are operated through the use of battery or AC power. A high-end faucet
can retail from anywhere from $570 to $700.
Figure 2: Electric Faucet
Pros: The perceived problem of hygiene is reduced with the use of automatic faucets. The touch-less
faucet switches on and off automatically which is conveniently hygienic and efficient. These faucets also
eliminate excess dripping with an automatic sensor. However, it is key to note that it only eliminates
dripping caused by manual error (person leaves tap running); it does not eliminate any dripping as a
result of mechanical error (faucet has worn parts).
Cons: There is a perceived lack of control when using automatic faucets. A user may require water, but
some internal malfunction can abort this process. As such, there is an inability to override the system
without opening up the internal mechanics of the faucet. As mentioned above, these faucets also rely on
battery or AC power, meaning they would constantly consume energy; which will add to Segal‟s energy
cost. In the case of power failure, these units rely on batteries. Having to periodically replace batteries
would add to the external costs of e-waste (and the problems of disposing). Finally, automatic faucets rely
on component interdependency. They are virtually inseparable; if one part has malfunctioned, usually the
entire faucet needs to be taken out to be replaced. Additionally, due to the extensive circuitry and its high
up-front cost, installing automatic faucets are most suitable for newly built buildings where such limitations
would not be of concern.
1
Winterport Water District. (2005). Are water leaks costing you money?. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from
http://www.winterportmaine.org/waterleaks.htm
2
Implementation Impacts
In analyzing the worthiness of implementing the electronic faucet system, several benefits and costs are
found.
Benefits: The primary benefits of automatic faucets are positive impacts on health and aesthetics.
2
Academic research show that the hot water handles of public washroom faucets have an average of 31
percent of bacterial site contamination, and cold water handles have an average of 15 percent site
contamination. The discrepancy is due to the incremental temperature differences between the handles,
with hot water handles being warmer, thus contributing to faster bacteria growth rates and a higher rate of
contamination. In addition, media surveys found that fifty percent of American respondents do not wash
their hands after going to the bathroom, and the majority of them say that it is because they feel that the
handles are unsanitary and are reluctant to touch them. The implementation of an electronic faucet
system will minimize such practices and decrease the likelihood of cross-contamination between
washroom users in the building. Additionally, electronic faucets are often more appealing than traditional
faucet systems and adds to the aesthetic values of the Segal building.
Costs: On the other hand, the implementation of a full electronic faucet system in the building requires
changing 26 faucets in all of the washrooms of the building. This translates to a total of at least $15,000
capital investment. Moreover, electronic faucet systems require power to be operational, which leads to
added energy consumption and costs. Another disadvantage of electronic faucets is AC-powered faucets
are not functional during power outages; although this can be eliminated by having battery backup or
hardwiring the system to the building‟s backup generator, it still consumes significant energy in the long
run as the faucets must be powered continuously. In the long term, electronic faucets also increase the
maintenance cost when compared to the traditional system. Finally, as the current system is fully
functional, installing the new faucet system will lead to unnecessary waste in the landfill.
2
C.Gerba. (1995). Micro-organisms in Public Washrooms. http://www.cleanseats.com/toilet_seats/view/article-7.html
3
Suggestion
Due to significant capital investment and higher long term costs, with limited contribution to sustainability,
we suggest that electronic faucets are more suitable for new buildings, and it is not recommended for
Segal to replace its current functioning system with a new electronic system. Although there may be a
disadvantage in sanitation, personal hygiene can be promoted with education and easily accessible
sanitary products.
Waste Tracking
Introduction
At the request of SFU Operations Manger, Sandi Lindahl, we conducted a brief study into the
effectiveness of the paper recycling program at the Segal Graduate School of Business Building. The
tracking of paper waste turned out to provide an examination of all waste materials. In particular, our
group spent a significant potion of the time studying the contents of the “wet” waste.
Time and Date
Our waste tracking studies, totaling three separate tests, were conducted during the second and third
week of March 2008. Specifically, for the first study, paper products were planted around 1300hrs on
th th
March 12 and reconnaissance was conducted at approximately the same time on March 13 . Following
th th th
the similar patterns, the second and third studies were conduct on March 18 and 19 , and March 19
th
and 20 respectively.
Methodology
The paper products used for tracking varied across the three occasions to make the process discreet.
The first study on March 12th, involved the use of A4 size papers from pages of a Business Law Text
Book. Fifteen samples were marked with white-board markers, which allowed the researchers easy
identification at a later time. Eight samples were placed in separate recycling bins in the Vault level, four
4
were placed in separate recycling bins on the Third level and three were placed in separate recycling bins
on the Forth level. Samples placed at different levels were marked in different colors.
The second study on March 18th, involved the use of seven identifiable A4 papers. Four were placed in
different recycling bins in the Vault level and three on the Third level. Samples in the Vault were folded
differently than those on the Third level to allow the identification of their sources at a later time.
The third study on March 19th, involved the use of ten identical magazines. Four samples were placed in
the Vault and Main level. Another six were placed on the Third and Fourth level. To differentiate, the
samples placed on the Third and Fourth levels were ripped versions of the magazine.
Results and Findings
Total Recyclable
Day of Recycle
"Wet" Waste Samples Pass-through
Recovery Paper Bin
Planted Rate
First Study's 3
Thursday N/A 2 15 13.33%
Result
Second Study's
Wednesday 2 N/A* 7 71.43%
Result
Third Study's 3
Thursday N/A 3 10 30.00%
Result
Table 1: Waste Tracking Results
The hypothesis of this study is that the paper recycling program at Segal is operating efficiently where all
paper products that are placed in the recycling boxes during the day, passes through the system into the
final recycling dumpster in the Garbage Room. Not only did our findings reject the hypothesis, but they
also illustrate the inefficiency of the (garbage collection) system.
The first study‟s samples recovery day coincided with the “wet” waste collection. Recyclable waste
collection, however, falls on a separate day which allowed for the examination of the paper dumpster.
This means we would be able to determine if the paper actually made it into the paper bin, but if we could
3
Examination of the respective bins are not possible as it has been emptied the morning prior to our inspection
5
not find it there, we could not conclusively determine where it was. Our recovery effort resulted in the
discovery of two out of the fifteen samples planted on the previous day. This implies the possibility that
the remaining thirteen planted samples were disposed of in the “wet” garbage dumpster.
The second study‟s sample recovery day coincided with the recyclable waste collection. This means that
we could not see if the paper products made it into the recycling dumpster, however we could still see if
they ended up in the wet dumpster. Our examination of the “wet” waste resulted in the recovery of two
samples, which serve as conclusive evidence to reject our hypothesis.
The third study, like the first, also coincided with the “wet” waste collection. Our examination of the paper
wastes yielded three samples, which support the conclusions of a inefficient recycling program since the
other seven samples were presumably allocated in the “wet” garbage dumpster.
Other Findings
Although the three studies could be affected by the confounding variables of garbage collection time,
other observations in the studies point to the inefficiency of paper recycling. First, the examination of “wet”
waste reveals that approximately 70% are paper products that could be recycled. These includes
newspapers, office documents, and magazines, all of which could have come from paper recycling boxes
or directly and inappropriately disposed of into garbage bins.
We also observed a significant amount of disposable paper cups and small quantities of e-waste, mostly
in the form of CDs. Our observation of “wet” waste yields no significant trace of recyclable aluminum cans
or beverage bottles. We also visually inspected the garbage collection carts of the cleaning staff. From
our observations, it appears that there is no collection bag for recyclable paper on the collection carts.
However, a collection box for recyclable aluminum cans or beverage bottles are clearly visible.
In addition, during the process of planting paper samples, we encountered a building staff who pointed
out the situation of overflowing garbage bins in large lecture halls on the forth floor. Our observations
6
4
confirmed that it is a genuine issue . The garbage bin in the mentioned lecture halls begins to overflow by
noon and greatly decreases the aesthetic appeal of the campus. The same staff pointed out that the
cleaning staffs usually do not have time to drop in between lectures to manage the garbage overflow
problem. Other students and faculty brought to our attention that they feel uncomfortable disposing of
their beverage containers in the garbage, so they leave them beside the waste receptacles. Even though
the current arrangement with janitors sorting bottles out of the bins is efficient, it harms the aesthetics of
the campus and makes our visitors feel uncomfortable.
Observations were also made on the locations of garbage bins and recycling boxes. We found that some
locations (i.e. the Suns‟ reading room) have an excess of garbage cans and some other locations are
lacking (i.e. the Forth level‟s Lecture Hall). We also observed the lack of recycling boxes in most locations
(i.e. the Second level‟s lecture rooms). A more strategic placement of bins is recommended, coincided
with larger receptacles in high volume rooms.
Implications
From our studies‟ results and observations, there are two implications to be made. First, the recycling
program is ineffective. This could be due to the fact that the cleaning staffs lack the adequate training.
Secondly, the inefficiency could also be attributed in part to the building users‟ behaviors.
A more visible recycling program is our recommendation. This is based on the fact that the current system
is inefficient with a lack of recycling boxes. A highly visible recycling program will enable and induce users
to recycle paper products. At the same time, investment into such program could reflect the seriousness
of the issue to the cleaning staff who would then treat the recyclable paper waste with proper actions.
4
Please refer to images in appendix
7
Recycling Program
Introduction
There are two important reasons why an improvement of the current recycling program will benefit Segal
and its stakeholders. The first reason is that the current recycling program is not meeting Segal's goal of
having properly sorted waste and recyclable materials, and this will likely cause Segal to be out of
compliance with impending government regulations that prohibit paper from going into landfills. As the
results of the tracking experiment suggest, recyclable materials are ending up in the waste disposal units,
both because of the way patrons are placing recyclable materials in garbage bins and because of the way
parts of the cleaning staff are handling materials. A more effective recycling program, in the form of better
recycling bins and recycling bin arrangements, could make a significant contribution to sustainability at
Segal and regulatory compliance
The second reason for implementing an improved recycling program is that it can potentially enhance
Segal's professional image. The current white boxes used throughout the school are not easily identifiable
as bins for recycling, because people usually expect recycling bins to be blue and properly labeled. The
boxes, in addition to being difficult to identify as recycling bins, are awkwardly designed for fitting papers
because they are of equal measurements around and do not have sides that are wide enough for papers
to slide through (without being bent or folded). Because recycling bins are so prevalent and visible in the
locations they are put, they can have real impacts on how professional and sustainable the Segal building
is perceived. Not having proper recycling bins may give the wrong impression to outsiders and may even
detract from the professional image that Segal deserves.
Choice of Recycling Containers
A variety of recycling containers exists for offices and commercial buildings, and they are widely available
through the retail locations and the internet. Four categories of recycling containers are found to be
suitable in the Segal building and their benefits and costs are listed as follows:
8
Cardboard Recycling Containers
Cardboard recycling containers are currently used in both classrooms, rented out facilities, study rooms,
and offices in the Segal building.
Pros: As they are currently used widely in the building, implementation of
cardboard recycling bins are considered to be at zero cost, except for units
beyond that already owned by the school. They are a simple and easy option to
the recycling program, and serve the practical function of recycling bins. The only
Figure 3: Cardboard Bin change recommended is to position them strategically to increase utility and
effectiveness. They are also light-weighted, thus will limit janitorial workload and health and safety risks in
handling.
Cons: Although they are practical, cardboard recycling containers are less attractive and do not deliver
aesthetic values to users and the atmosphere. In some cases, their existence may actually detriment the
aesthetics of the environment in certain rented out rooms and classrooms; especially for rooms in the
main and second floor. In addition, they are very unnoticeable and users often have to be proactive to
search for the bins in the rooms.
Blue Plastic Recycling Containers
Blue bins are a conventional and standardized method of paper recycling for offices and commercial
buildings. Each unit ranges from five to forty dollars, depending on size and shape. These bins are
suitable for office cubicles, study rooms, and smaller classrooms on the fourth and fifth floors.
Pros: Because blue recycling containers are a widely used medium of paper
recycling in North America, their existence delivers a strong recycling message for
users around the building. They are also a lot more noticeable than the white
cardboard containers currently used; users tend to spot the blue recycling bin right
Figure 4: Blue Bin away as it stands out from the surroundings, thus increasing utility and recycling
9
effectiveness. They also present a cost-effective approach in the Segal building, while serving the
practical and light-weighted functions of the cardboard containers.
Cons: As the Segal building does not currently own these units, implementing them will mean additional
purchases. Additionally, they are also less suitable and may be detrimental to the atmosphere of rented
out facilities and meeting rooms on the first and second floor of the Segal building. Larger bins may also
increase the risk of injuries or long term health problems for janitors and handlers.
Elegant Steel Recycling Containers
One of the core features of the Segal building is the aesthetic value and prestigious atmosphere delivered
by the architectural and interior-design on the building. As mentioned, a major deficit in the traditional
recycling container options is that they are less suitable in the Segal environment. In response, we
decided an elegant option must be used in the main and second floor of the building to maintain, and
possibly increase the aesthetic value, while delivering the functionality of paper recycling. In terms of
options, there are many designer recycling containers that could be purchased over the internet, and
most of which are made of steel and come in a variety of colors and sizes. They are generally more
suitable for high-end commercial buildings and at business offices or events. Although few educational
facilities have implemented these elegant recycling containers, they are popularly used in eminent
buildings and locations, such as the Fairmont Chateau Whistler Hotel, which is renowned for its
environmental and prestigious buildings and operations.
Pros: As mentioned, these elegant bins are generally more suitable and
align with the prestigious settings of the Segal building. Different color
options will also make the bins more noticeable while matching with the
atmosphere of different rooms. They also come with different tops and labels,
meaning that they can be purchased in a set with waste and can recycling
bins; which will eliminate the use of black plastic waste bins currently used
around the building, and will enable efficient can/bottle recycling. Although Figure 5: Elegant Bin
can and bottle recycling are done through an incentive program for janitors in the Segal building, there
10
have been continuous complaints by the faculty and students of the lack of a visible can/bottle recycling
container; such complaints are detrimental to the University‟s reputation in the sustainable movement,
and thus should be eliminated wherever possible. In addition, the implementation of these elegant
recycling containers assists in communicating the University‟s commitment and investments in
environmental actions to users.
Cons: These elegant recycling containers are more expensive when compared to the traditional
cardboard or blue plastic containers. The price of each unit can range from $150 to $250, depending on
size, and each set (with waste and can/bottle recycling units) could cost up to $450 to $750. Moreover,
they take up more space and are less portable than the other two options mentioned previously. Although
they are made of steel, the actual bins inside the containers are made of plastic and are removable for
collection; however, deeper containers may be less retractable and pose a health and safety hazard for
janitors and handlers.
Retrofit Recycling Containers
Retrofits can be built into the existing closets of the two large meeting rooms on the second floor of the
Segal building. They are a creative option to the traditional containers and have to be custom-made. The
idea is to cut appropriate slots on the closet doors for paper, waste, and possibly can/bottle recycling, and
fit separate bins into the closet as collection containers. The estimated cost of each unit is approximately
$500.
Pros: Retrofits are the most appropriate in matching with
the atmosphere of the Segal building as it utilizes
existing structures in the classrooms. They are also
more sustainable as it requires fewer materials to
implement, and provide a clean appearance for the room
as waste plastic bins can be eliminated. In addition, they
are more janitorial-friendly than the steel bins, as janitors
Figure 6: Retrofits
11
will only have to open up the closet door to collect the waste and recyclables, while they will have to reach
down and pull the bin up from the steel containers. They are also very noticeable, as users will see the
recycling slots while seeking to throw away their garbage; however, clear labels and signs are suggested
to increase the visibility of these containers.
Cons: Although retrofits are an attractive option in the recycling program, they are only viable in rooms
that have built-in closets or cupboards that have low utility rates; therefore, only two rooms in the whole
Segal building would meet this criterion and are suitable for retrofits. Despite the fact that they are more
janitorial-friendly than the steel bins options, it may still be more cumbersome and hazardous for janitors
to collect the bins as they will likely be larger and heavier than the cardboard and blue bin options.
Moreover, they are less noticeable than having actual containers by the exits of the classrooms.
Suggestions
Full Centralized Reduced
# Cost # Cost # Cost
Paper 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Blue (S) 100 $500 50 $250 50 $250
Blue (L) 0 $0 10 $400 10 $400
Elegant 7 sets $3150 5 sets $2250 6 sets $2700
Retrofits 2 $1000 2 $1000 0 $0
Total $4650 $3900 $3350
Table 2: Recycling Program Alternatives
As recycling containers can be purchased in various combinations, we suggest several alternatives as
preliminary examples to illustrate the different strategies and their associated costs.
Full Version.
The full version suggests a strategy whereby the maximum amounts of recycling containers are
distributed in each cubicle, study room, office, classrooms, meeting rooms, and hallways of the Segal
12
building. A mix of recycling containers are chosen to suit the atmosphere of the different areas; for
example, two retrofits are recommended for the two large meeting rooms on the second floor of the
building and seven sets of elegant steel bins are recommended for rental rooms, lobby, and main
gathering areas that require the prestigious appeal. One hundred small blue bins are located in other
areas, while cardboard and large blue bins are eliminated because they are either not as attractive and
are unnecessary if small blue bins are implemented fully.
Centralized Version.
In the centralized version, larger blue recycling bins are strategically located to eliminate the use of small
recycling bins in individual study rooms or cubicles to decrease the amount of work performed by janitors
during collection. The amount of elegant containers is reduced by strategically placing one or two sets at
mutually accessible areas between different rooms. On the other hand, the retrofits are still recommended
as they are in rooms that have a higher occupancy capacity and have little common areas to fit a
relatively accessible recycling unit. Cardboard recycling bins are eliminated in this strategy as they are not
attractive and less noticeable for users; however, cardboard recycling bins can still be used in certain less
visible locations, such as cubicles and offices, to prevent negative impacts to the building‟s atmosphere. It
is up to the decision-maker to decide whether cardboard recycling bins are appropriate or not, but they
are easily accessible as the building have a stock of them currently in use.
Reduced Version.
The reduced version follows the centralized strategy by using larger blue bins in strategically placed
locations to eliminate some small recycling bins and the use of elegant bins in centralized locations. We
suggest that the retrofits can be eliminated in this version if management can find a centralized location
on the second floor for a set of elegant recycling containers, so it is convenient for occupants of both of
the two large meeting rooms. This version is the least costly version; however, it is also arguably the least
effective as recycling units are no longer as accessible as they could be.
13
Other Options.
With the information provided, decision-makers have the option to utilize different combinations not
suggested above. It is strongly advised that the Segal building start to implement a visible recycling
program, both to ensure that the school‟s reputations are maintained and to reduce to risk of public
scrutiny. In addition, a commitment to recycling through investment and implementation will communicate
a strong message to janitors and contracted firms that recycling is important to Segal and the University,
and that negligence by janitors are not ignored. In addition, proper paper recycling reduces the risk of
being fined for non-compliance to the Zero Waste initiatives and bylaws of the Greater Vancouver
5
Regional District .
Reducing Waste
As mentioned under our “Other Findings” heading above, much of the material filling up the „wet‟ garbage
dumpster can be reduced. Reducing the garbage does not only have an impact on the Segal School‟s
bottom line, as it could lead to less pickup days, but also can help improve our image to project to the
world that Simon Fraser University is serious about our environmental impact. We decided to explore
three options to help reduce the waste that our school creates.
Plastic Bags Reduction
Plastic bags are serious waste products that remain in our environment for a period of time that is not yet
known, but estimated to be in the thousand-year range. The petroleum they are made from give them
properties that make them like a magnet for dangerous chemicals like DDT‟s, DDE‟s and PCB‟s, which
stay with the plastic as they photo degrade into molecular sized particles that are easily transported out of
landfills, into water reservoirs, and ingested by wildlife and humans. However, the petroleum product is
also very convenient as they are durable, strong and cheap. We decided, with the interest of Kevin, to
explore the possibilities of implementing the use of non-petroleum based bags.
5
Please see Appendix for drawings of proposed recycling bin implementations
14
There are two alternatives to convention petroleum based plastic bags that are currently being offered.
Both types of bags degrade quickly once they are disposed of. First there are “Oxo-Degradable” bags,
which are still made with petroleum products, but they have a catalyst built into them which helps break
the plastic down into a form that is digestible for certain life forms. They also maintain the same
characteristics as a typical bag and will break down in a landfill within one to two years. These bags are
the cheaper of the two alternatives, but they still cost up to five times the cost of a regular bag. The
second is biodegradable bags; they are the most environmentally friendly product out of all the
alternatives. They are made from an organic based material, often corn, and break down naturally in a
matter of weeks. However, they have performance problems as they may begin to break down within the
garbage receptacle. Biodegradable bags also cost up to ten times more.
The costs of the alternatives to conventional plastic bags are too high to justify the environmental pay off.
The money can be invested in other initiatives and provide a much higher utility per dollar. This is why we
are recommending to not switching to either of these alternatives.
Disposable Cups Management
As our waste tracking section disclosed, a surprising portion of Segal‟s garbage consists of disposable
cups. It is therefore in Segal‟s interest to have employees reduce their waste by using reusable mugs. In
addition to the waste reduction, it will also be beneficial to the campus reputation. An example of a
campus adopting a reusable cup campaign is the University of Victoria, where a large population of
faculty and students consistently use the mugs. Their initiative, complemented by many other green
initiatives, has helped build up their green reputation which has attracted a large amount of research
funding to their campus.
Besides the free cups provided by Segal‟s bottled water supplier,
which should be removed, the remaining disposable cups are
coming from outside sources such as coffee shops. Many of
these coffee shops offer discounts for customers who bring their
Figure 7: SFU Reusable Mugs
15
own reusable cups. This is an easy way to convince people at Segal that it is in their personal interest to
change their behavior. In addition to this, we recommend that all new staff be given a reusable mug with
the SFU logo on it and be encouraged to keep it within the building for their personal use when at work.
Currently, the SFU Bookstore has a collection of SFU reusable mugs that will be applicable and ready for
the reusable cup program.
Sustainable Battery Program
One of the larger concerns for Segal's sustainability is the environmental impacts of the use and disposal
of its alkaline-based batteries. Alkaline batteries, which are unfortunately standard in North America and
Europe, are difficult to dispose of or recycle, contain chemicals that are very harmful to the environment
(even when recycled properly), and have very modest recycling or metallic reclamation potentials. At the
very least, it would be beneficial to find ways for Segal to have its batteries recycled. But it would be
preferable to find a solution that results in alkaline batteries being replaced with batteries that are more
environmentally friendly. This section proposes two ways for improving Segal's battery regime.
Battery Recycling
The first option is to maintain the use of disposable alkaline-batteries in Segal, but to implement a
recycling program for batteries that is practical and effective. Although we were unable to find any
agencies that perform pick-ups of batteries, we did find local organizations that accept used-up alkaline
6
batteries. The first is called Vancouver Battery . The organization accepts alkaline batteries, and handles
the transportation to a local site where batteries are recycled. Vancouver Battery is located a few miles
southwest of the Granville Street Bridge, close to Kitsilano. The only drawback of using this organization
6
as the recycling site is that Segal will have to buy as many batteries as it drops off for recycling .
6
Vancouver Battery's Website, http://vancouverbattery.com/support/recycling.php
16
The second organization that handles battery recycling is the
7
University of British Columbia Student Society . The society
has a large battery drop container located in the basement of
the student union building, and it should be able to handle
Segal's recycling demands. Segal will have no obligations to
UBC or its student society under this arrangement, and will
only have to incur costs in transporting batteries from Segal to
Figure 8: UBC Student Union Building
7
UBC . Also, like that of Vancouver Battery, any alkaline
batteries dropped off will be taken to a proper site for recycling and reclamation.
During the presentation, the point was made that SFU Burnaby has a small-scale recycling program run
by the LIDC department, but that it only applies to staff. If the LIDC is able to accommodate Segal's
battery recycling needs, and if this arrangement is more practical and cost-effective than the other two,
then SFU Burnaby probably offers the best solution available. Of course, it may be a good idea to search
for recycling options outside of these three organizations.
The Big Green Box Program
One interesting alternative for recycling alkaline batteries is called the Big Green Box program, which is
8
run by a Californian company by the same title . The way the program works is that Segal contacts the
company online at www.biggreenbox.com or by phone at 1-877-468-6926 with a request for a Big Green
8
Box for alkaline batteries . The company sends by parcel delivery a safe-box for holding batteries, where
any batteries Segal is finished with are put. Once the box is full (its capacity is about forty pounds), Segal
contacts the company, which orders UPS to come to the school and pick the box up for delivery to the
recycling center. This program is available for Vancouver offices like Segal. However, it will require at
8
least sixty-dollars per box, and each box will likely last between six months to one year . This cost should
be weighed with the convenience of the program.
7
University of British Columbia Waste Management Homepage. http://www.recycle.ubc.ca/recycling.htm
8
Big Green Box Website Homepage, https://www.biggreenbox.com/index.php
17
Storage for Used-Up Batteries
If a drop-off program is used instead of the Big Green Box, an effective battery recycling program will
require that used-up batteries be stored safely and securely before they are brought to wherever they are
to be recycled. For this, we are proposing that Segal purchase a battery recycling container -- as shown in
the adjacent picture -- that is able to hold used-up alkaline or rechargeable
batteries until they leave Segal. The container in the picture can be
purchased online from Recy-CAL Supply Company for twenty-five dollars
9
before tax at http://www.recy-cal.com/bare.html . The company is located in
California, and will ship a container order to Segal on request. Segal will
9
Figure 9: Battery Recycling have to pay for the shipping and handling expenses .
Container
The container can be kept in one of Segal's backrooms, where staff and security can go after replacing
the batteries in any of the school's appliances. When the container is close to full, or whenever it is
convenient to take the container for recycling, it can be sealed and loaded into any small passenger
vehicle without any major risk of leakage -- the container is built to resist leakage.
Rechargeable Batteries as an Alternative to Alkaline Batteries
The problem with implementing sustainability while still using alkaline batteries is, one, that alkaline
batteries, no matter how they are handled after usage, are still environmentally harmful and have poor
reclamation potentials, and, two, that it is difficult to find organizations that recycle them for free. Both of
these problems vanish if rechargeable batteries are used instead. Rechargeable batteries are made with
far fewer harmful chemicals, and their recycling is much more efficient, allowing for a greater reclamation
of metals and alloys.
Moreover, in Canada there is an organization called Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation
10
(RBRC) that accepts and handles the recycling of rechargeable batteries . This organization works on a
vendor system, whereby organizations like department stores and drug stores sign on as participants in
9
Recy-CAL Homepage. Used for one picture and cost figure on battery disposal bin. http://www.recy-cal.com/bare.html
18
the program, accepting batteries from organizations like Segal, and delivering those batteries by courier
10
to RBRC for processing . The participant organizations are very widespread. In fact, the closest
10
organizations that participate, London Drugs and B-Wireless, are just a few blocks from the school . If
Segal were to use rechargeable batteries, it would be able to recycle them at these stores, and it would
be far more convenient and environmentally friendly than implementing a recycling program for alkaline
batteries.
The difficulty with using rechargeable batteries -- the standard nickel-cadmium or lithium batteries, at least
-- is that they are not practical for appliances like clocks and television converters. Generally,
rechargeable batteries run out of charge quickly, are damaged when recharged before being fully used,
degrade in performance over time, and are less powerful in comparison to alkaline batteries.
We found a battery developed by Sanyo called the Eneloop, which, according to the company, suffers
11
from none of the aforementioned drawbacks of traditional rechargeable batteries . The Eneloop is
claimed to last as long, or longer, than a standard alkaline battery. It is not damaged when recharged
before being fully discharged, it operates at a higher voltage, and it
provides consistent charge cycles before degrading at around 500
11
recharges . What this means, assuming Sanyo's claims are true, is that
this rechargeable battery can be used at Segal, and can be just as
practical as an alkaline battery. There will be no frequent battery
switching and recharging, and no major changes in behavior will be
required.
Figure 10: Eneloop Batteries
The only drawback of the Eneloop is the up-front cost. A four-pack of AA or AAA batteries costs about
thirty dollars and the charger forty dollars when purchased at A&B Sound (which is around the block from
11
Segal) or purchased online on Dell's website . However, the company claims that, in the long run, it is
10
Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation Homepage. http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/
11
Eneloop Battery, Sanyo. Used for one picture, product specifications, and cost figures for the Eneloop Battery.
http://www.eneloopusa.com/eneloop.html
19
more cost-effective to use the Eneloop than alkaline batteries because the Eneloop will likely provide over
a decade of service, whereas an alkaline battery only one year.
Conclusions & Recommendations
After extensive research, our team found the following:
Automatic faucets do not present water savings options due to the efficient faucet system that
is currently in place.
Waste tracking found inefficient and ineffective paper recycling methods currently implemented
in the Segal building; other recyclables are also found in the waste bins.
A selection of recycling bins is cost effective and can potentially deliver a strong message of
the importance of sustainability and recycling in Segal.
Thousands of plastic bags are currently used in Segal and contribute to waste problems.
Biodegradable bags are examined, but do not yet present a cost-effective approach.
Disposable cups present an unsustainable problem at Segal; they are used daily by staff,
students, and users of the building.
Battery waste contributes to significant harm to the environment and should not be tolerated by
SFU. Effective battery recycling program and rechargeable batteries are examined.
Recommendations
Segal should keep the current conventional faucet system in washrooms.
An effective recycling bin program should be implemented campus wide.
Biodegradable bags should be used once it becomes cost-effective.
A reusable mug program should be implemented.
An effective, small-scale, battery recycling program should be pioneered by Segal / SFU
Vancouver Operations.
Rechargeable batteries should be used; Eneloop batteries present a cost-effective option for
Segal building appliances and electronics.
20
Appendix A
Waste Tracking Results
Garbage found are mostly paper products and recyclables
Overflowing garbage bin on fourth floor lecture hall
iii
Cleaning cart without separate section for paper and recyclables
Other products found in waste bin, including e-waste, disposable cups, and organics
iv
Appendix B
Recycling Program Proposal
Before After
Blue Bins
Elegant Bins
Retrofits
v
Appendix C
vi